I want to remind you all of this... Serious question. Should Obama have been removed from office back in 2009? Mr. Obama sat in New York as chairman of the Security Council — a first for an American president, meant to symbolize his commitment to rebuilding the Council’s tattered authority. The president did not just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda — as is the prerogative of the leader holding the gavel for the month. The rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the drivers seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th. But, the U.S. Constitution States that: U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9 - No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. No U.S. President has ever served as Chairman of the U.N. in its 65 year history. The U.N is a foreign state (a collection of foreign states actually). Did Congress grant approval for Obama to receive this title (Chairman of the U.N. Security Council) and I missed it? Is it Constitutional for Obama to be President of the United States AND Chairman of the U.N. Security Council at the same time? Is this a conflict of interest? Has Obama violated Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution? Before the Leftists start screaming racism or the Conservatives start jumping on the band-wagon...please think it out. This is a serious question I have here. Thanks in advance for any thoughtful answers I receive.
Posted on: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 01:08:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015